US vs UK PhD

[SaschaC]

What's the general impression about UK PhDs in art history as far as ability to get a job in the US afterwards and reputation of the degree vs a US one. I've been accepted to a US school with some funding and two UK schools with questionable funding (one i don't have any funding first year and the second I would have to defer for a year which would give me a year to find funding for the program). My general impression seemed to be that a US degree held more weight but I just had a professor at the school where I got my MA (who i never worked with but i was advised to ask about London schools) say that I should pass on the US school and go to one of the London schools (she i don't think was thinking about money - and she really didn't give me any feedback regarding why she said that). Other professors had either said they weren't as familiar with the London schools or that really I should only consider them if I"m okay with money being unpredictable. So they seemed to give the impression that a degree from the London schools, despite a good reputation will also carry the stigma of being "very expensive degrees". I was pretty sure I should go with the US degree (UCSD - which my former professors have all had great things to say about) but now - especially since she didn't give me much feedback about the schools in particular - I"m wondering if there's something I'm missing and whether I should reconsider.

Any thoughts or information anyone has would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

[good∵desire]

I would say that while reputation matters - and I agree that UCL and the Courtauld both carry more weight than UCSD in terms of international reputation - what really matters is where you can do what you want to do and where you can get the money to do it. In other words, in the long run what really matters is what you accomplish NOT where you go.

I did my MA in London. While it got me into the PhD program I'll be starting in the fall (leaning towards Berkeley), one of the reasons I didn't even apply to UK PhD programs is because of the funding and because they are only 3 years. In my mind, both of these factors were going to limit what I would potentially be able to accomplished.

What's the general impression about UK PhDs in art history as far as ability to get a job in the US afterwards and reputation of the degree vs a US one. I've been accepted to a US school with some funding and two UK schools with questionable funding (one i don't have any funding first year and the second I would have to defer for a year which would give me a year to find funding for the program). My general impression seemed to be that a US degree held more weight but I just had a professor at the school where I got my MA (who i never worked with but i was advised to ask about London schools) say that I should pass on the US school and go to one of the London schools (she i don't think was thinking about money - and she really didn't give me any feedback regarding why she said that). Other professors had either said they weren't as familiar with the London schools or that really I should only consider them if I"m okay with money being unpredictable. So they seemed to give the impression that a degree from the London schools, despite a good reputation will also carry the stigma of being "very expensive degrees". I was pretty sure I should go with the US degree (UCSD - which my former professors have all had great things to say about) but now - especially since she didn't give me much feedback about the schools in particular - I"m wondering if there's something I'm missing and whether I should reconsider.

Any thoughts or information anyone has would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

[lilacpear]

What's the general impression about UK PhDs in art history as far as ability to get a job in the US afterwards and reputation of the degree vs a US one.

The biggest challenge to overcome upon your return is the likely lack of teaching experience you will have. The accelerated pace of most British PhD programs (normally completed within three-four years) will not allow you any extra time to devote to teaching. TA positions are very rare - I did my MSc in London and never *ever* met a TA, or even heard of such a position being available - and academic jobs for doctoral students in the early stages of the program in the UK are not exactly pouring from the heavens. You will most likely spend those three-four years working on your research and lecturing at one or two student conferences per term.

The upside is that the faster pace will keep you focused and you will most likely finish your dissertation earlier than any of your peers who started at the same time as you. UK unis do not look kindly on "faffing about" with a dissertation for seven or eight years. You will be done faster and will be able to return to the US faster, should you choose not to stay in the UK for good. If time to degree completion is important to you, then a UK program is your best choice.

I've been accepted to a US school with some funding and two UK schools with questionable funding (one i don't have any funding first year and the second I would have to defer for a year which would give me a year to find funding for the program). [...]So they seemed to give the impression that a degree from the London schools, despite a good reputation will also carry the stigma of being "very expensive degrees".

Those degrees carry the stigma of being very expensive because they are!

The issue of funding for UK schools is sticky. There is very little available funding for overseas students, and you will be charged over three times as much tuition as a UK or European Union student. Things may not be as bad now as they were when I went there... the exchange rate is not as devastating. But if finances are a concern to you, then know that the UK will be a very costly option (large tuition, high cost of living, limited job options for overseas students, etc). Of course, you can always rationalize this decision by arguing that you'd only be paying this exorbitant tuition for three years, versus five-seven years of US tuition. Best way to decide which option is less costly is to do the math for yourself.

My general impression seemed to be that a US degree held more weight [...]

I guess that depends on the school and the degree, but my personal experience has been that UK degrees trump US degrees in terms of perceived panache (probably because of that stigma you mentioned before). Panache, of course, has very little to do with reality as you will always have to prove your academic 'weight' regardless of which school you attended.

As for which degree will translate more easily into an academic job in the US... I have no clue. The academic job market is a complete mystery to me at this point. I'm just glad to be a lowly adjunct for now...

Hope this helps

lp

[drg]

As an American who has a British PhD and 10 years of teaching experience I can tell you that not having academic transcripts has cost me a lot of good jobs. British PhD are earned through research only. However, to teach in the USA, especially at the graduate level, say, in psychology, the college will likely not hire you if they can't see what specific psychology courses you have taken at the graduate level. Also, many of the state accrediation agencies require transcripts to be in an employee's file upon inspection.

[seriousmeasure]

Hi there, I have a similar query, although I am in a somewhat different position. I am from the UK and actually still doing my BA at a UK university but have to start sorting out my Postgraduate course now. In the UK it is standard to do an MA after BA then PHD, and I am pretty sure unless you're exceptional you won't get accepted to do a PHD without an MA. I want to go to a really top school to do my Postgraduate studies so obviously I'm looking at Oxbridge and Courthauld. However, I would love to move to the US and want to look at Ivy League too, but have no idea where to start. The whole US system seems alien to me. I looked on Harvard and they don't do an MA, and the PHD seems to be 7 years? I know I am being really ignorant, but I don't really know much about the US education system. Could anyone sum it up in a nutshell for me?

[losemygrip]

Most US Ph.D. programs in art history are designed as Ph.D. programs only. You might pick up an M.A. along the way as part of the curriculum, but you're applying to get a Ph.D.

There are some "terminal" M.A. programs in the U.S. still, most famously at Williams College. They can be very good--they lavish all their attention and money on students at the M.A. level. Having an M.A. may or may not help you with getting into a Ph.D. program. If you go into Harvard with a completed M.A. from elsewhere, they only give you ONE semester credit. ONE!!!

In the US the M.A. is typically two years of course work plus thesis. Ph.D. is typically two years of course work plus dissertation. The course work may be somewhat shortened depending on curriculum and your own course load. Average time to a Ph.D. in the humanities in the U.S. is ten years. Sounds as though that is not tolerated in the U.K.

If you REALLY want to move to the U.S. for grad school, plan to come and get a Ph.D. and apply to all the programs that you're interested in. If you're just interested in getting a taste, apply to terminal M.A. programs (U.C. Riverside, Arizona State, Williams, Tufts all come to mind) and then return to England for your doctorate.

[seriousmeasure]

Most US Ph.D. programs in art history are designed as Ph.D. programs only. You might pick up an M.A. along the way as part of the curriculum, but you're applying to get a Ph.D.

There are some "terminal" M.A. programs in the U.S. still, most famously at Williams College. They can be very good--they lavish all their attention and money on students at the M.A. level. Having an M.A. may or may not help you with getting into a Ph.D. program. If you go into Harvard with a completed M.A. from elsewhere, they only give you ONE semester credit. ONE!!!

In the US the M.A. is typically two years of course work plus thesis. Ph.D. is typically two years of course work plus dissertation. The course work may be somewhat shortened depending on curriculum and your own course load. Average time to a Ph.D. in the humanities in the U.S. is ten years. Sounds as though that is not tolerated in the U.K.

If you REALLY want to move to the U.S. for grad school, plan to come and get a Ph.D. and apply to all the programs that you're interested in. If you're just interested in getting a taste, apply to terminal M.A. programs (U.C. Riverside, Arizona State, Williams, Tufts all come to mind) and then return to England for your doctorate.

Thank you for your help and I apologise for my late reply...i was on holiday.

You have been very helpful, but I am still confused about the apparent 7 year length of the PHD at Harvard.. is this usual for US? Also, would you be paid, because otherwise surely no one would do it. I would be 30 by the time I finished that course, and I would hope to have achieved some sort of income by then. Also, and I know I may be shooting in the dark asking this, but I have literally no idea what kind of candidate will get accepted into Harvard. What could I do to prepare and improve my chances? Pure intellect, wide knowledge, extra curricular, work experience, good grades... I am expecting I will get nowhere without a First for my BA so that is my number one aim.

[losemygrip]

7 years for a Harvard Ph.D. is highly optimistic. It will likely take much longer. In the old days, Harvard was notorious for lengthy doctoral candidacies.

If we all knew what kind of student gets accepted at Harvard, well, then we'd all be going there. The two I have known personally came in with M.A. degrees, one from Ivy League and one from highly ranked state university art history program. Both were interested in subtle and densely theoretical stuff, but both also had practical experience (one as a working artist, one in museums). Neither had anywhere near the kind of foreign language skills that I did when I applied years ago.

Now that I'm thinking about it specifically, I guess neither of these two took more than 10 years to finish. One of them may have done it in 7. (But remember--that was AFTER an M.A.)

[fullofpink]

Regarding Harvard: One of the sites (Phd.com?, and I think Harvard's website does too) states that average PhD length is 9 years.

Yes, you get paid to work on your PhD - especially schools with good endowments and tons of fellowships (Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Berkeley), but the amount depends on the schools and if you need to acquire department/school/university or even outside funding. Most schools have a single person whose sole job it is to help you find financial relief for graduate studies.

Who gets into Harvard? Luckily, Harvard has posted their last two incoming classes on their newsfeed along with some biographies. It's really interesting who they've selected. http://haa.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k11229&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup94907

These people have a wide breadth of experience in the field, in their studies, most have higher degrees, studied abroad and come from top schools.

However, Harvard isn't the end all of art history programs. In fact, some people prefer to stay away from it lol.

Most people don't get their PhD's under 30 - some do, but it requires a LOT of foresight, planning and ironwill. Almost all the curators in the museum I work for and the professors I've studied with all received their degrees between 29-35. And then, most have spent about 2-5 years teaching after receiving the degree before they reach tenure track or landed a relatively safe job. It's really important to know how this field works before pursuing the degree. I know right now in your early 20s, that not getting your dream job until you are 34 is a pretty terrifying thought, but really, it's not unusual in this field at all. My favorite story one of the curators tells me is that between getting his degree and getting his first real curator position took nearly 10 years, and even then the job was at a museum of no reputation with ridiculous expectations - now he's the curator of one of the best collections in the US for his field...25 years after taking that first job.

Edited June 14, 2011 by fullofpink

[bYg]

My situation is not quite the same, but I assume I could give and get some advice nonetheless.

I am a Senior UG at a uni in Manhattan Majoring in Bible. I have already decided and begun preliminary work on my Dissertation. I am interested in UCL in particular because of the presence of a prof who informally invited me to do a PhD there. My academic adviser (and Bible prof) is somewhat reticent (but by not openly opposed) to my attending a British uni. He expressed the fear that others in this thread have, that finding a faculty position in the US with a UK PhD would be very difficult. Personally, if the only downsides are lack of teaching experience and lack of roundness of knowledge (what with no coursework), why can't one just spend one or two years TAing/lecturing and working on syllabi AFTER finishing the UK PhD, which would still put one on par with an early (and ahead of a 6 or 7 year) US PhD?

Question about funding and citizenship: I currently only have a US citizenship, but can easily become an EU citizen. Would this be more financially expedient (visa, grants, etc.), or should I remain solely a US citizen?

thanks!

[fullofpink]

My situation is not quite the same, but I assume I could give and get some advice nonetheless.

I am a Senior UG at a uni in Manhattan Majoring in Bible. I have already decided and begun preliminary work on my Dissertation. I am interested in UCL in particular because of the presence of a prof who informally invited me to do a PhD there. My academic adviser (and Bible prof) is somewhat reticent (but by not openly opposed) to my attending a British uni. He expressed the fear that others in this thread have, that finding a faculty position in the US with a UK PhD would be very difficult. Personally, if the only downsides are lack of teaching experience and lack of roundness of knowledge (what with no coursework), why can't one just spend one or two years TAing/lecturing and working on syllabi AFTER finishing the UK PhD, which would still put one on par with an early (and ahead of a 6 or 7 year) US PhD?

Question about funding and citizenship: I currently only have a US citizenship, but can easily become an EU citizen. Would this be more financially expedient (visa, grants, etc.), or should I remain solely a US citizen?

thanks!

I am NO expert on visas, but from my understanding (regarding UK graduate programs) A EU citizenship is looked more favorable upon than a sole US citizenship. I may have read somewhere that some schools can offer funding and discounts to EU Citizens that they can't offer to other foreigners, but I honestly cannot recall those sites and I do not remember which circumstances they stood in for.

[wreckofthehope]

My situation is not quite the same, but I assume I could give and get some advice nonetheless.

I am a Senior UG at a uni in Manhattan Majoring in Bible. I have already decided and begun preliminary work on my Dissertation. I am interested in UCL in particular because of the presence of a prof who informally invited me to do a PhD there. My academic adviser (and Bible prof) is somewhat reticent (but by not openly opposed) to my attending a British uni. He expressed the fear that others in this thread have, that finding a faculty position in the US with a UK PhD would be very difficult. Personally, if the only downsides are lack of teaching experience and lack of roundness of knowledge (what with no coursework), why can't one just spend one or two years TAing/lecturing and working on syllabi AFTER finishing the UK PhD, which would still put one on par with an early (and ahead of a 6 or 7 year) US PhD?

Question about funding and citizenship: I currently only have a US citizenship, but can easily become an EU citizen. Would this be more financially expedient (visa, grants, etc.), or should I remain solely a US citizen?

thanks!

I'm not sure about this, but I vaguely recall there being a rule about students needing to have lived in the EU/UK as a citizen for at least the three years prior to the start of the course in order for them to qualify for EU/UK fees.

[fullofpink]

I am NO expert on visas, but from my understanding (regarding UK graduate programs) A EU citizenship is looked more favorable upon than a sole US citizenship. I may have read somewhere that some schools can offer funding and discounts to EU Citizens that they can't offer to other foreigners, but I honestly cannot recall those sites and I do not remember which circumstances they stood in for.

BYG, I understand that you are not an art history major, but here's one example of a graduate program where it looks easier to be EU citizen than not: http://www.courtauld.ac.uk/degreeprogrammes/generalinformation/international.shtml

They also point out Europa regarding international affairs: http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm

[arthistoryvoe2]

Thank you for your help and I apologise for my late reply...i was on holiday.

You have been very helpful, but I am still confused about the apparent 7 year length of the PHD at Harvard.. is this usual for US? Also, would you be paid, because otherwise surely no one would do it. I would be 30 by the time I finished that course, and I would hope to have achieved some sort of income by then. Also, and I know I may be shooting in the dark asking this, but I have literally no idea what kind of candidate will get accepted into Harvard. What could I do to prepare and improve my chances? Pure intellect, wide knowledge, extra curricular, work experience, good grades... I am expecting I will get nowhere without a First for my BA so that is my number one aim.

A lot of people take longer than "normative time" for whatever reason - life happens, situations change, you run into obstacles, etc. You may have to learn unexpected languages based on new interests. Some people find that although they are very good at coursework, they are less good at setting their own schedule for research and writing. It's lonely. Once you get "off track" it can be harder to get back on because then you have to work to support yourself. 7 years does not seem like an especially long time from the point of view of the US system. 6 is fast.

Also, 7 years is typical because the assumption is that you start from a less specialized undergraduate training than in the UK. If you are an art history major as an undergraduate in the US you have generally only done about half your courses in art history. So two years of coursework in a US PhD program "makes up" for the "missing" advanced undergraduate training you would have received in a UK university. (However, I would say that the broad training of US institutions - in the best cases - actually provides people with a stronger foundation especially for interdisciplinary kinds of work in art history.) Also, in the US you are often given more latitude to formulate your own dissertation topic, which takes time, but can be rewarding later in terms of your understanding of a broader context for your work. It worries me a little to see in the UK how many PhDs are advertised for extremely narrow and specific topics that serve the needs of the supervisor but may make it very difficult for the candidate to get a job. Even when the topic is chosen by the candidate, it's often chosen at a very young age and doesn't necessarily translate into a topic that meets the demands of the job market well. In the UK you may be finished sooner, but don't count on getting a permanent job any sooner. it may seem that UK PhDs get a lot of jobs in the US, but proportionally I don't think that holds up - there are some exceptional cases. But I think typically the best UK candidates look a little less prepared to teach and less prepared to turn their dissertations into books on the demanding tenure-track schedule than the best US candidates.

On the financial question, I would not do an art history PhD program in the US without a full stipend. The amount and length varies from institution to institution. A gold-plated package—in a high cost-of-living location—would be ca. $30K for 6 years. You may be able to do just as well on $18-20K/year in less expensive locations. Ideally, beyond the 4, 5, or 6 years of your basic funding package you would receive grants or other teaching income. No one should go deeply into debt for a humanities PhD. A terminal MA can be a good idea for some candidates and may require going into debt. But if you are applying to PhD programs and are not admitted with a decent stipend (which may come with teaching responsibilities) you should spend the next year improving your application rather than start at a disadvantage it will be hard to dig yourself out of.

[fullofpink]

A lot of people take longer than "normative time" for whatever reason - life happens, situations change, you run into obstacles, etc. You may have to learn unexpected languages based on new interests. Some people find that although they are very good at coursework, they are less good at setting their own schedule for research and writing. It's lonely. Once you get "off track" it can be harder to get back on because then you have to work to support yourself. 7 years does not seem like an especially long time from the point of view of the US system. 6 is fast.

Also, 7 years is typical because the assumption is that you start from a less specialized undergraduate training than in the UK. If you are an art history major as an undergraduate in the US you have generally only done about half your courses in art history. So two years of coursework in a US PhD program "makes up" for the "missing" advanced undergraduate training you would have received in a UK university. (However, I would say that the broad training of US institutions - in the best cases - actually provides people with a stronger foundation especially for interdisciplinary kinds of work in art history.) Also, in the US you are often given more latitude to formulate your own dissertation topic, which takes time, but can be rewarding later in terms of your understanding of a broader context for your work. It worries me a little to see in the UK how many PhDs are advertised for extremely narrow and specific topics that serve the needs of the supervisor but may make it very difficult for the candidate to get a job. Even when the topic is chosen by the candidate, it's often chosen at a very young age and doesn't necessarily translate into a topic that meets the demands of the job market well. In the UK you may be finished sooner, but don't count on getting a permanent job any sooner. it may seem that UK PhDs get a lot of jobs in the US, but proportionally I don't think that holds up - there are some exceptional cases. But I think typically the best UK candidates look a little less prepared to teach and less prepared to turn their dissertations into books on the demanding tenure-track schedule than the best US candidates.

On the financial question, I would not do an art history PhD program in the US without a full stipend. The amount and length varies from institution to institution. A gold-plated package—in a high cost-of-living location—would be ca. $30K for 6 years. You may be able to do just as well on $18-20K/year in less expensive locations. Ideally, beyond the 4, 5, or 6 years of your basic funding package you would receive grants or other teaching income. No one should go deeply into debt for a humanities PhD. A terminal MA can be a good idea for some candidates and may require going into debt. But if you are applying to PhD programs and are not admitted with a decent stipend (which may come with teaching responsibilities) you should spend the next year improving your application rather than start at a disadvantage it will be hard to dig yourself out of.

This.

[lilacpear]

But I think typically the best UK candidates look a little less prepared to teach and less prepared to turn their dissertations into books on the demanding tenure-track schedule than the best US candidates.

Yes, which is why those interested in pursuing a career in academia are well advised to avoid UK PhD programs altogether. Lack of teaching experience kills even the best of teaching job applications. Works great for non-academic careers, though...

MA programs in the UK are good alternatives, if you can afford them. They typically last only one year, credits are "transferable" for advanced standing in doctoral programs stateside, and they're quite intensive.

lp

Edited June 21, 2011 by lilacpear

[PatrickA]

Hi,

I have read all the previous messages and would like to know more about getting a job in the U.S. as a Lecturer or Professor with a Business PhD. I am from Canada and am doing my masters in a very decent Business School in the UK. It is internationnaly ranked and holds the three leading accreditations (AACSB, EQUIS, AMBA). Because my undergraduate GPA is much lower than what it should be, I think I would not be able to get into a good PhD program in North America. There is a Business School where I think I might have a shot in Canada, but it is not in major rankings and it does not hold any accreditations aformentioned. However, it is a fairly known university in Canada. It constantly ranks as one of the country's best comprehensive university (usually Top 3 or 5, sometimes 1st position). It is respected in Sciences, but has little relevance in Business apart from a its Bcomm in Real Estate Management which is a flagship program (only two in the country).

I think there is a small chance that I could do my PhD here in the UK. Of course, even if I get some kind of funding, it will still be more expansive, but I'll graduate in three years, whcih will enable me to start working faster. I do realise that I probably will not get the opportunity to teach ( I would get many opportunity at the Canadian university). My vision is that the teaching opportunities are not that important, because I will be able to get them once employed. However, I will not be able to change the reputation of my University...

For this reason, I am considering choosing the UK university (if I am accepted). My big master plan is to work in the USA afterwards, as wages are substantially higher than in Canada or the UK in my field (Need to pay those student debts eventually). My concern is that it will be hard to find a job in the US and maybe Canada with a UK PhD. I constantly see Professors with Canadian or American PhD teaching in both countries, but I don't think I have ever seen or heard of a Marketing Professor with a British PhD in the USA... Would doing a 3 year PhD force me to work at less prestigious universities?

Also, the first year of my PhD in the UK would be methodology classes. So I would normally have a transcript to show and I have transcripts for my MSc too. Would that allow me to find work easily in North America?

Thank you

[tendaysleft]

I have read all the previous messages and would like to know more about getting a job in the U.S. as a Lecturer or Professor with a Business PhD.

Hey Patrick, i think most of the above advice applies to people studying Art History at the doctorate level--there's probably more information on Business PhDs at this forum here: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/14-business/

My understanding is that teaching experience is quite important when applying to teaching positions, but again, I think the expertise here is humanities-centric--perhaps it's different when it comes to Business? Definitely check out that other forum and ask around there, and also at this forum here: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/72-jobs/

Good luck!